Wikipedia:Cleanup process/Old instructions

Front matter

Sample terms to use
keep - fine - wikify - nonsense - OK now? - unimproved - insufficient - meta - stubified - substub - expand - nonexistent - obscure - idiosyncratic - ad/advert - selfpromotion - ungrammatic - silly - joke - repeat - link - chatty - rant - POV - NPOV - copyvio - brilliant - obscenity - blog - vanity page...

• Most comments here are first impressions, not considered analyses of an article. Thinking deeply before listing an article here is suggested, but it is definitely not a requirement either.
• Limit comments to a few words only; verbose comments will be edited for brevity.
• Be specific. Saying "needs work" is not enough.
• New entries go at the top.
• Begin your comments with a "-" to separate it from the previous one, but:
  • If you have made or are reporting a change to the page in question, use a "+" instead (e.g. "+ fixed the first paragraph", "+ deleted" or "+ stubbified")
• The comment "delete" or "VFD" is a vote to move this page to VfD, not to delete it immediately. Please list such entries in bold.
• If you think an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, write "delete immediately".
• Edit conflicts can be mitigated by copying your own text before you submit it, so you can paste and repost it quickly.
• Remove listings once stated problems have been resolved.
• Unresolved old listings can be moved as appropriate to Pages needing attention, Duplicate articles, or Requests for expansion Sign with your sig only—no timestamp please (to do this, type -- ~~~)

Reasons for listing an article here include

1. It is a substub, and might need removal or merging with a broader article
2. It needs extensive formatting, proofreading, or rephrasing in comprehensible English.
3. It is a candidate for "speedy deletion" according to the deletion policy, but you're not a sysop and can't delete articles (a sysop may see it and delete it, or it may be improved into a decent article).
4. You think it should be deleted (copyvio, unsalvageable POV), but aren't sure, and don't want to mistakenly put it on VfD (it will be moved to the appropriate page by somebody else).
5. It needs to be changed urgently for some reason.

Style notes:

• When adding an article below, include a brief reason why you are putting it here. Try to keep your comments short, but also keep them specific. Saying an article "needs work" is completely uninformative.
• Keep things moving. The cleanup page should be regularly maintained and should not become stagnant: we don't want it to grow too large, and we don't want entries to be ignored.
  • Daily headers are added to keep the page moving.
  • After fixing an article listed here, or moving it to VfD or another meta-page, please remove it from this list.

Removing Entries

To remove an entry, you should fix it first; but common sense should govern how large the cleanup page gets and how long entries are left there. A good rule of thumb is to keep the page size below 30k, and to reduce size by summarising past discussion rather than removing old entries when possible (this is not VfD; comments are not sacred).

When an entry is removed, it can be:

• fixed - someone cleaned up its immediate or mentioned faults;
• just removed - it had its chance, but nobody can fix it right now;
• moved to VfD (or the appropriate sub-page)
• moved to pages needing attention, if the topic clearly requires an article, but the current article is weak.
• moved to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion if it is still to short for the importance of its subject matter.

Some common types of entry follow, together with advice on how to handle them:

• Harmful content (nonsense, personal essays/opinions, accuracy problems, or severe unedited bias): may be fixed by paring down content until nothing objectionable remains.

• Bad article, perhaps listed on VfD, but an unlikely candidate for deletion - leave here; try to improve. Cleanup works on a longer timescale than VfD.
  • It is not always obvious whether an entry falls into this category or the one below; when in doubt, leave the entry here.

• Bad article, likely candidate for deletion - move the entry to VfD. If it isn't voted for deletion it will generally be moved back here, somewhat improved.
  • Again, if in doubt, leave it here even if it is on VfD.

• Raw text dump - remove only after the article has been wikified, reworded with better encyclopedic style, verified for accuracy, weeded for useless or unremarkable information, AND NPOVed.

• Request for NPOV, fact checking or other faults which could make the article actively harmful - don't remove unless you're sure the article is fixed.

• Request for expansion of a sub-stub - remove once it's a valid stub, or move it to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion if you think the topic needs more than a stub (see below).

• Request for expansion of an otherwise fine stub. Most requests of this sort can be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion.

• Request for expansion of a non-stub, long-term reworking of an article, or better completion of a list, template, or overview - after a week, can be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. RPE works on a longer timescale than cleanup.

• An article subject to an edit war or other active dispute - leave the entry here until it is a few days old, to draw attention to the problem. After a week it can be removed, since the dispute resolution process will fix the problem if possible.

Above all, fix things you know how to fix. If you're looking for something to do, aggressively target entries in the following places:

• Today - if an article can be dealt with immediately, that's the perfect outcome.
• About a week old - beyond a week, an entry is clearly treading water, so try to deal with it before then.
• The end of the page - the article is approaching its last chance to be fixed via the cleanup process; it may be now or never.

Stay frosty

Unlike VfD, it doesn't really matter whether an article is on cleanup or not.

If the fact that an article is on cleanup upsets you, you may be reading too much into it. Most articles need improvement; someone just happened to stumble over this one. One way or another, it will be off cleanup in a few weeks. And since cleanup comments must be short, assume notes like "horrible" or "?!" or "eek" are hasty abbreviations for "could be better", not abbreviations for "this is the worst article I've ever seen, and I hate whoever helped write it".

If the fact that a particular article is not on cleanup upsets you, list it again. But if it has already gone from the top of cleanup to the bottom and "fallen off", it may be better to think of another solution rather than just trying cleanup again.